Wrong basis of argument
Obviously the Constitution has not been established upon the basis of the Holy Koran, which sets it apart from the constitutions of countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Afghanistan.
Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Daily
If Malaysia is not a secular state, there isn’t any that is one.
Minister in the prime minister’s department in charge of religious affairs Jamil Khir Baharom said Malaysia is not a secular state based on historical facts as the establishment of the country adhered to the Islamic Malay Sultanate.
I was thinking if suddenly a minister in the British Conservative administration said in the Lower House one day, “Britain is not a secular state as the country was established upon the foundation of the Christian kingdom.”
Indeed, historical records show that prior to the 16th century, Britain was a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire and later King Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church and decreed the Act of Supremacy, declaring that the British Monarch not only was the head of the country but also the supreme leader of the Church.
Britain later adopted the constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. And by Jamul Khir’s interpretation, based on the historical facts, Britain should not be a secular state.
Britain aside, perhaps all other nations in the entire continent of Europe are not secular states as they were once vassal states to the Catholic Church before they became constitutional monarchies or republics.
In ‘a similar manner, many countries in the Indian subcontinent have inherited Hindu traditions and the kings were rightly Hindus, just as Indochinese states were once ruled by Buddhist kings and Latin America, the Catholic heads.
So, historical facts show that no countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America are bona fide secular states because these countries were once established upon the foundation of their respective religions, be it Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism or Buddhism. No way should they be secular states.
However, none of these countries have cited “historical facts” to negate their secular status.
During the Pahlavi, Iran was embracing constitutional monarchy instead of an Islamic republic, which is indeed a historical fact. Nevertheless, no one should argue that because there used to be a Pahlavi dynasty reigning in the country, Iran should be anything but an Islamic republic.
Jamil Khir’s problem’s problem lies with the fact that his interpretation of the country’s existing administrative system is established upon “historical facts” that are worlds apart from today’s reality.
As a matter of fact, a country’s administrative system, whether it is a theocratic state or a secular state, will very much depend on its constitution and not just “historical facts.
The single most important thing for those defending the country’s secular status is the federal constitution as well as its Customary Law as well as the existing administrative system which is founded upon the basis of secularism.
The federal constitution was established upon the spirit of secularism, granting people of different religious faiths the power to choose and to defend their statutory rights. Obviously the Constitution has not been established upon the basis of the Holy Koran, which sets it apart from the constitutions of countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Afghanistan.
Our existing legal system was also founded upon the basis of customary law applicable to all Malaysians/ The shariah law, while enjoying certain degree of respect, is only applicable to Muslims, and only in personal matters such as marriages, custodial rights, estate inheritance, etc.
Today, Malaysians elect the prime minister and his Cabinet into an administrative team through the elections. We have not produced ayatollahs in accordance with the Will of the Almighty to run our country on His behalf.
Unless the Constitution is amended in favor of hudud law, which should be of real concern to us.
